Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[SOLDIER First]

DMPCs should be extremely useless (but not to the point of being detrimental) in combat guides and nothing more.

[Twinwolf]

DMPCs should be extremely useless (but not to the point of being detrimental) in combat guides and nothing more.

Well, maybe a healer if none of the players wanted to play one, too.

[NullForceOmega]

I don't like DMPCs at all really, I do have an avatar who pops in to distract the hell out of the players, but he never actually helps or hinders them (sometimes he even gives them interesting things to do).

[Rolan7]

Closest we've ever had to a DMPC was an enemy rogue who we successfully talked into assisting us during the battle.  We liked his quirky personality so much we made him a hireling, and eventually a cohort.  But he was really just an ally we adopted, and who the DM voiced.

Eventually I took over the character as a hireling, and that... didn't go as well.  I'm pretty bad at RPing by voice, and trying to voices is just embarrassing for me.  I'd actually ask the DM to take control of the character for RP stuff some of the time.  Which does make sense since he was technically evil, at least at first.

He actually retired eventually, reformed.  ... Not *good*, but with a sense of compassion and good sense.  I'm happy he outlived my characters.

[Chevaleresse]

our campaign generally has DMPCs because we trade off DMing and it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the current DM's character sit around and do nothing. I also like to run one but they usually end up on the back burner. Definitely not soloing dragons and shit.

[Dorsidwarf]

our campaign generally has DMPCs because we trade off DMing and it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the current DM's character sit around and do nothing. I also like to run one but they usually end up on the back burner. Definitely not soloing dragons and shit.

This and healers for a party where nobody wanted to cleric are the only times I can think of a DMPC (as opposed to a Major NPC) being a good idea.

[Jimmy]

Yeah, I insert helpful NPCs only when I think there might be a skillset lacking for a particular required challenge, and even then, my campaign assumes that if you don't have the required character build, tough luck, you fail. Of course, there's always an alternative option to solve the challenge that doesn't require a specific skill, usually involving combat of some kind.

[Flying Dice]

I would like to point out (as an addendum to what I said about minmaxing), that when players roll up a character for my games, I'm not a leave them as they lie (rolled in order and set in stone) DM, I let my players apply their rolled stats as they see fit, and I will allow them to roll multiple sets of stats (sets must be used cohesively), it tends to lead to characters who are good at their jobs as well as something (or things) other than that job.

I don't take issue with a player who sets themselves up to be a good ____, I take exception to players who abuse the system, a player who just sets themselves up to be effective is not a minmaxer, a minmaxer is abusing the rules to 'win' or 'be the best' by doing everything they can to have their chosen field at maximum possible (or impossible, but munchkins are a different story) values.

And as an aside, point buy is evil, and should never be allowed due to the hideous things players create with it (yes, I've done it too.)

A bit belated here, but this made me realize what the disconnect between us was. I've always considered the "game" and "story" aspects of a character to be, by necessity, part of a coherent whole; when minmaxing a character, for me, eroding at their character isn't an acceptable tradeoff for more power. The point is, as someone back there suggested, designing the crunch such that it enables roleplay rather than shutting it down. Someone who doesn't want to optimize their character at all would be better off playing a freeform just as much as someone who wants to powergame is best off playing with others of their ilk.

'Cause that's the thing. The person you make doesn't exist in a vacuum. Their crunch needs to roughly correspond to the power (though not necessarily competence, as long as it's not something liable to repeatedly wipe the party) of both the other players' characters and the campaign. Treating it as a nonentity is just as harmful as letting people do whatever they want, because when the Rogue with the 11/8/8/9/12/11 spread and Healer misses every trap, constantly gets caught stealing, and can't talk his way out of a paper bag, that's not an enjoyable experience for anyone who isn't a masochist.

That's the difference between freeform and round-robin storytelling as opposed to tabletop: stats do matter, as they do in any story where important events are decided by dice rolls. That's not saying that you should ignore character for stats (though if everyone in the group enjoys that, more power to 'em), but that you need to find a balance.

[Neonivek]

The thing about Roleplaying versus Roleplaying with stats is kind of simple.

In typical Roleplaying/storytelling every character is important and it is all about creating scenes for them.

In Roleplaying with stats characters are essentially competing for scenes in order to be relevant.

It is why stats matter in Tabletop. Don't got the stats, don't get the roleplay. No one gets to play Frollo Baggins on tabletop.

[Criptfeind]

It is why stats matter in Tabletop. Don't got the stats, don't get the roleplay. No one gets to play Frollo Baggins on tabletop.

This is something I see people thinking a lot, but honestly I quite disagree. Although it depends on your GM of course, I find that in non combat situations a vast majority of the time even people who don't contribute mechanically to the scene can still make useful and interesting contributions though roleplaying.  When you're talking to someone, working out a puzzle, by passing a trap, etc etc etc. Even if you don't have diplomacy or mehcanics or whatever skill is relevant I've found that if you roleplay well it's a very rare (and normally very shitty) GM that will just totally shut you down.

Now, for combat situations, I think it sorta depends on the game, in a game where the mechanics are focused around combat (like D&D) I find it's rarer to be able to contribute purely by being clever (although still possible often, it just requires being more clever and having a flexable gm sometimes).

Not to say that stats don't matter. In games where stats matter they still totally matter. Just that... I disagree with the viewpoint that people need to compete for relevance and that it's impossible to contribute to a scene where you don't have the skills.

[Rolan7]

I won't try to make a general claim, since I've only really played with one group, but after over 2 months I'm still loving World of Darkness for its open-endedness.  We get bogged down in combat mechanics occasionally, but not nearly as often.  And there's just so much vagueness (and miles of fluff in the book) which remove the importance of RAW. 

Sure 3.5e has rule 0 (GM fiat) also, but we mostly used it for resolving problems (like a broken combo, or an impending party wipe).  World of Darkness, and especially Vampire abilities, are constantly asking the players and GM to just invent rolls that seem appropriate.  It feels liberating.

Edit:  Though again, a lot of what we're doing now (applying situational modifiers, or stretching skills to fit a check) were totally things in 3.5e.  We just weren't using them much.

[Jimmy]

I invent rolls all the time in Pathfinder.

For example, last session one of my players asked if he could set an ambush for the orcs the party are hunting. "Sure," I say. "Here's two options: roll your Survival check to see how good the terrain you find for the ambush is, or else roll 1d8 for the number of hours it takes to find the perfect ambush site. If you roll Survival, I'll draw the map for the spot you find, but if you roll the 1d8, you get to draw the terrain."

[SOLDIER First]

why would hunt big, strong, misunderstood orcs

[Jimmy]

Because dwarves pay 2,000 gp reward for head of Ironjaws, orc barbarian marauder.

[SOLDIER First]

befriending him grants the opportunity for much more than 2,000 GP...